THE NORTHERN KENTUCKY SEARCHER
"Search the scriptures: for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. " (John 5:39)

VOLUME 1, NUMBER 33, SEPTEMBER 16, 2001

THE LORD'S SUPPER ON SUNDAY EVENING

At the celebration of the Passover Meal before His death on the cross, our Lord Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper. In 1 Corinthians 11, beginning with verse 23, Paul gives this divinely inspired account of that event. He wrote, "For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it, and said, This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me. In the same way he took the cup also, after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me. For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes."

Bible students are aware of the fact that as the apostles went about teaching the church to "observe all that I commanded you" (Matt. 28:20), one of the things that they taught was that the disciples of Jesus were to partake of the Lord's Supper each first day of the week. Acts 20:7 constitutes the only example we have of when the early church partook of the Lord's Supper. It was upon the first day of the week. Each week has a first day, consequently, every first day of the week Christians are to partake of this great memorial feast.

In the 11th chapter of 1 Corinthians, we learn as well that this memorial is to be observed at the congregational assembly of the brethren. Verse 18 says, "For, in the first place, when you come together as a church…" Verse 20 tells us, "Therefore when you meet together…" While the congregation is assembled together on the Lord's Day, the Lord's Supper is to be partaken of. The setting is collective, but the actual partaking is individual. 1 Corinthians 11:27 - 29, says, "Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself, if he does not judge the body rightly." Thus, the Lord's Supper is taken when the church is gathered together - yet each member is individually responsible for partaking and the manner in which they partake. This is why there is no authority for taking the Lord's Supper to a sick member in a hospital or home. It is taken when the church "comes together as a church".

There has been considerable controversy over the years and in various locations about offering the Lord's Supper on Sunday evening for those who were not able to be with the saints at the morning service. I believe that it should be offered if there is going to be a Sunday evening service. The bible makes it clear that it is each member's responsibility to partake of the Lord's Supper each first day of the week. If I truly cannot be at the Sunday morning service, but can gather with the saints on Sunday evening, I find nothing that would indicated that my responsibility to individually partake of the Lord's Supper has been negated. The church comes together in the evening, hence the setting is correct - and I individually partake and that is correct. I would not want to appear before the Lord having denied a brother or sister the opportunity to do what God requires them to do.

What I do have trouble with is those who view Sunday evening service and the offering of the Lord's Supper as an alternative to Sunday morning. Those who think, "I can miss Sunday morning because I can always partake of the Lord's Supper Sunday evening" clearly have a lax attitude and are abusing the opportunity. The Sunday evening offering of the Lord's Supper is not done to allow someone who was out late Saturday night to sleep in. It is not offered to make it more convenient for those who have out-of-town guests. It is not offered so vacationers can get an early start and stop somewhere in the evening to partake. It is offered for those who truly could not be there in the morning to fulfill their obligation.

Greg

HOW RELIABLE IS THE TEXT?

Have you ever heard anybody question the reliability of the text of the Bible? By that I mean have you ever heard anyone confidently assert that we just can't be sure that we have the original words of the scriptures, that we just can't be sure that the text is reliable? It has always amazed me that such comments are usually made by fairly well educated people who use such reasoning to defend their rejection of the authority of the Word of God. I say it amazes me because these are often the same people who have studied the works of Aristole and Plato in philosophy classes, or labored over the works of Pliny the Younger or Caesar's Gallic War in History of Western Civilization courses.

The bible is a work of antiquity. Even its most noted and vehement critics assign it a place of prominence among other ancient writings. It seems to me that when we are talking about something as fundamental as textual reliability, all works of antiquity must be judged by the same criteria. Let's see how the textual reliability of the bible stacks up against other famous works of antiquity when the same standard is used.

There is a test used by scholars when dealing with ancient writings that is meant to determine the reliability and the validity of the text of such writings. It is called the bibliographical test. The test is an examination of the way the text of the documents we now have has reached us. In other words, since the original documents no longer exist, or at least haven't been found, how reliable are the copies we do have in regards to the number of manuscripts we now possess and the time between the original writing and the earliest copy in our possession.

There are over 13,000 ancient manuscripts of the New Testament. Now this is not to say that they are all complete, but there does exist at least 13,000 manuscript copies of at least portions of the New Testament. There are approximately 8,000 manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate translation and close to 1,000 manuscripts for the other early versions. Add to that 5,000 Greek manuscripts and that is how we arrived at the figure of over 13,000. Besides all of these partial and full manuscripts, almost all of the New Testament can be found in quotations of early Christian writers from the second and third centuries.

Here is how the bibliographical test works. Let us consider the famous Gallic War of Caesar. It was written between 58 and 50 B.C. The earliest copy still existing was written approximately 900 A.D., making a time span of 1,000 years from the original to our earliest copy. There are 10 copies that are any good at all in existence today.

Consider Plato's famous Tetralogies. Plato lived from 427 to 347 B.C. The earliest copy we have of his work is dated from around 900 A.D., making a time span of 1,200 years from the date of writing to the earliest copy. There are 7 ancient manuscripts of this work Philosophy students have been studying Plato for years and the professors don't seem to worry about "textual reliability".

How about Pliny the Younger's History? It was written between 61 and 113 A.D. The earliest known copy is from 850 A.D., making a time span of 750 years. There are 7 manuscripts total.
How about the New Testament? It was written between 50 - 95 A.D. The earliest manuscript that we have is the John Ryland MSS, dated 130 A.D. It is a portion of the Gospel of John. That is a time span of 40 to 50 years.

There is the Chester Beatty Papyri, dated 200 A.D. It contains major portions of the New Testament. Here is a time span of 110 years.

On and on we could go, from 150 A.D. to 500 A.D, including the Codex Sinaiticus of 350 A.D, containing almost all of the New Testament and over half of the Old. There is the Codex Vaticanus, dated 325 to 350 A.D. It is currently in the Vatican Library and contains nearly all of the bible. Also existing is the Codex Alexandrinus from 400 A.D. It is in the British Museum and contains almost the whole bible. When it is all put together, with time spans ranging from 50 years to 410 years, there are over 13,000 manuscripts of the New Testament. To deny the textual reliability of the New Testament is to reject every single work of antiquity because there is not one that comes even close to being as well attested to as the New Testament text. Even skeptics must be honest.

Greg Litmer